Cohen Enters into Hearing Record SPJ Resolution Opposing Mandated Clearance of Reporters

The Society of Professional Journalists’ 2017 resolution calling mandated clearance restrictions on journalists a “grave risk to public welfare,” was entered into the record of a Congressional hearing on proposed Scientific Integrity legislation, July 17.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) requested the SPJ statement be entered during the hearing on the legislation, which would seek to ensure that federal scientists are free to communicate by such means as publishing, attending conferences, being part of professional groups, and responding to media requests for interviews without prior approval.

The SPJ resolution, on the other hand, cites its concerns regarding, “the harm done by restrictions on access, including mandates that reporters always go through PIOs.” It does not limit the concerns by the status of the person the reporter wants to talk to.

Cohen is also chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Justice.

The Scientific Integrity bill is sponsored by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) and it is supported by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

As I noted earlier this year, the mere introduction of the bill may be important to efforts against the mandated clearance censorship (“Censorship by PIO”) because it includes the provision against prior approval for contacts with journalists. It’s the first time I know of there have been statements in Congress indicating any of the restrictions on reporters talking to people are deleterious. Currently there are heavy prohibitions in many agencies against employees speaking without permission and oversight.

Rep. Tonko and Sen. Schatz, wrote in an opinion piece on the bill in USA Today, “Information is power, and we don’t believe public science should be controlled solely by the political powerful.”

Colleges and Universities: Teaching The Censorship by Doing It

On some campuses, says a Student Press Law Center article, a “shifting power dynamic has allowed college PR offices to deceptively spin stories, masquerade as news, deny student reporters access to sources, and infringe on student media’s editorial independence.”

The author, Samuel Breslow, brought the 2018 article to my attention after a discussion on “Censorship by PIO,” at a recent Society of Professional Journalists D.C. chapter event.

Looking at incidents over past years, the piece says many schools have taken to routing interview requests for staff through the PR office, with the PR officials sometimes sitting in on and recording interviews by student reporters.

The article, which looks at incidents and reporting from several schools, says, “Sometimes universities try to prevent interviews from taking place at all.”

Journalists Consider Breaking Their Silence About the Obstruction

On May 20, the Columbia Journalism Review published one of the best articles yet on the phenomenon of “mandated clearance.” That refers to agencies, offices and others forcing reporters’ conversations to be overseen--and often blocked--by some authority, often a public information officer. 

Minneapolis journalist Cinnamon Janzer brought her own frustrations to the article and interviewed several SPJ people (including myself) and other journalists.

The conclusion, as stated by former SPJ president Carolyn Carson, is, “When the government is obstructing your ability to get those answers, the public needs to know exactly what they’re doing….”

Maybe journalists are coming to understand that. Coincidently, on the same day a post from the Association of Health Care Journalists said something similar. Felice Fryer, AHCJ Right to Know Chair, wrote about her newsroom at the Boston Globe. Editor Brian McGrory encouraged a reporter to do a column about state officials not answering questions, after widespread frustration in the newsroom and one PIO being amazingly obstructive.

Over the last 20-30 years there has been a surge in the trend of making public information officers into censors and information manipulators, at the behest of people in power. It’s a great shame on the PIO profession. It’s a greater shame on journalists that we have not told people about these blockages that impact them every day.

It’s critical to state, however, that journalists must not only fight for access in those instances they need to go through PIOs. It’s our ethical obligation to fight for the right to talk to anyone without any notification by anybody of any authority, including PIOs, before or after.

That’s just free speech. And without routine, fluid conversations, not overseen by anyone, confidential if need be, reporters will be dangerously unaware of many things.

Comments from the Area of the Closing Gates

These are things I have heard public information officers from federal science agencies say in the last year or so.

Silencing Dissidents

---A PIO said a reporter had asked for an interview with a particular person in the agency, but the agency probably would not allow it. One reason was that the source person might want to make a case for the worth of his particular program in the agency, for budget purposes.

Comment: Dear American public: Don’t ever, ever allow public officials to keep disgruntled staff opinions away from you. Those miffed folks have often been invaluable in telling us what is happening to us.

Blocking the “Wrong” Expert

---Another PIO said in a public meeting that in media interviews he allows the scientists to talk about science and the policy experts to talk about policy, but he doesn’t allow either to talk about the other area.

Comment: Can any of us imagine how much is silenced forever by people in power deciding who can speak about what? People with eyes and ears and a brain can’t tell us anything?

Congress shall make no law….

---Also, in a public meeting, a PIO said that in “media training” of agency experts she told them that yes, they have First Amendment rights, but they can still get in trouble within the agency for saying something.

Comment: When did agencies decide the public wanted them to ignore the First Amendment? How is it anything but irresponsible for the press and the public to trust a few people in an agency who use their power silence everyone else?

A Bill Actually Speaks Out Against the Censorship

New legislation introduced in both the House and the Senate could be important to the fight against federal agencies’ policies that prohibit employees and journalists from communicating with each other without notifying the authorities.

The Scientific Integrity Act (S. 775), aimed at ensuring that scientists and scientific research is not stifled, was introduced by Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Representative Paul Tonko (D-NY).

Among other things the legislation says, “covered individuals” in federal agencies “may respond to media interview requests regarding their scientific or technical findings from research conducted by the individual without prior approval….”

The mere introduction of the bill may be important to efforts against the censorship policies because it is a statement against mandated oversight by the authorities for contacts with journalists. It comes in an environment where heavy prohibitions against speaking without permission and oversight are the norm.

In the legislation “covered individuals” are employees or contractors who are engaged in, supervise or manage scientific activities; analyze or publicly communicate about those activities; or use the information in making policy, management or regulatory decisions.

The bill also says, however, that the agency may require the individual to report the subject of the interview.

Importantly, the bill also says those covered individuals may talk about personal opinions, including on matters of policy, only if they indicate they are presenting personal opinions.

The legislation is supported by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

NASW Standards Call for Journalists to Have Direct Access to People in Federal Agencies

The National Association of Science Writers has released its Information Access Standards “to guide interactions between journalists and PIOs and sources at federal science agencies.”

Notably the standards say, “Journalists should have direct, unrestricted access to sources in the federal government.”

They also state, “PIOs and federal agencies should encourage direct and unfettered communication between journalists and scientists.”

The standards emerged from a one and half day summit held last October, participated in by both science journalists and PIOs. That was followed by a multi-step review and NASW board approval.

The process was guided in great part by Gabriel Popkin, a science journalist in the Washington, D.C., area and until recently head of the NASW. Popkin has said that there needs to be a push going forward to publicize and use the standards and to formally collect information on what is happening with access.

The standards make NASW one of the first journalists’ groups to, in essence, call for an end to the forced clearance through authorities of all contacts between journalists and employees.

In 2017 the Society of Professional Journalists called those policies censorship and a grave threat to public welfare.

(Full disclosure: I was involved in drafting both statements.)

The NASW standards further state, “Federal agencies should clearly inform scientists and other employees that they have a right to express their personal opinions, including to the media, without fear of retribution or punishment.”

That also is groundbreaking because many agencies have long said the reason people can’t speak, or that the agency must tell reporters who to talk to, is that source persons’ statements might not reflect the “coordinated” agency statement.

Considering Free Speech Rights for Government Staff From A Different Angle

So maybe the concept of the right to free speech for government employees is coming from another direction?

The Trump White House is forcing all kinds of staff people to sign nondisclosure agreements, says a Perspective piece in the Washington Post.

The NDAs are probably not enforceable but they might have a chilling effect, say Irvin McCollough and Tom Devine of the Government Accountability Office, a nonprofit that helps whistleblowers.

One “rider” on the annual appropriations legislation, “allows Congress to block executive branch ‘payment of the salary’ for any federal employee who attempts to prohibit or prevent another federal employee from communicating with Congress,” says the comment.

Interestingly, speaking to the news media or writing a book might be construed as protected under the provisions, say the authors.

This comes after the Trump campaign filed an arbitration claim against Cliff Sims, a former campaign and White House staffer, who wrote a book called, “Team of Vipers,” about the Trump White House. In a Washington Post column, Sims attorney Mark S. Zaid said, “If the president prevails, any winning candidate could forever silence — in advance — those who worked on their campaigns. Our democratic way of life should not tolerate political censorship.”